Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
David G. Healy

Questions WCR supporters need to deal with

Recommended Posts

reposted with permission...

This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or

top-posting now...) Look near the bottom for a new question in honor of

Bugliosi.

[Any killfiled trolls: don't worry, if you *actually* make a valid point,

someone (Aeffects, Walt, Gil, Toddy... whoever) will be sure to respond - and

I'll see your response.]

I've updated a number of the questions with more information.

But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're

in no particular order:

1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry

location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably

exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was

virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?

2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the

head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular

defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone

but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region

there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures

approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the

Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not

admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of

medical witnesses.

3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to

demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC

was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is

almost funny to watch...

4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the

source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the

claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many

eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot

from the left?

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,

changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts

that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How

could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a

fellow police officer?

6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,

and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his

statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would

have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the

bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you

remember?

Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots

hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Mr. BELIN - Where was he?

Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that

time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up

and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were

trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the

first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.

Mr. BELIN - The President's car?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was

standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped

completely.

Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?

Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.

Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment

there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.

Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of

shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the

Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why

was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of

the WCR?

7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of

people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed

dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in

the extant Zapruder film?

8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has

asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret

Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene

procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?

Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned

action?

9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this

meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the

best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no

reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in

burying the NAA data?

10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison

trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck

was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was

'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a

*reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state

prosecution?

11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of

meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move

Baker’s time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They

did so by false statements, why was this needed?

12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek

Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general

atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the

paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commmission. Dr. Guinn

said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of

the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should

also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax

impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had

informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'

because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and

conducted two parallet tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight

occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested

by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a

primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report,

quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's

cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we

found out about Oswald becuase it is secret until the publication of the Warren

Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153

These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were

contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact

that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was

not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*

for Oswald...

Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without

allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?

Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still

denied by most LNT'ers today?

13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce

(two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed

themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by

two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from

Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered

more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a

conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and

bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964,

written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964.

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce)

fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC

refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in

the WCR.)

14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the

statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers

refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?

(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he

*requested* the supporting evidence)

15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on

the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the

autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running

away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was

twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest

fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:

*******************************************

> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,

> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what

> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.

John McAdams:

We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's

apparently just a sliver.

******************************************

Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?

Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually

round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to

frame Oswald.

16. "I also found some surpising results based on the chest X-ray. I made

accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The

front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance

of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.

Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the

back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was

described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.

When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then

connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw

that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have

caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest

X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.

Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse

processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width

of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere

in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the

upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another

problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung

damage of this type was seen by the pathologsts and none is seen on the X-rays

either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then

exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major

lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact

measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves

direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at

the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158

Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that

this *is* possible?

17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:

Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not

dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described

today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you

examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.

Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?

A: Right.

Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

A: I don't recall.

Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that

doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the

prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were

clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even

John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.

18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and

completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes

were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was

done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed

in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing:

"I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer

who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same

officer did not agree to statein the autopsy report that the autopsy was

incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the

first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony,

more than three months after the autopsy."

Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple

historical fact?

19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the

inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied

that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the

eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The

prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea,

which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH

THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen.

(Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs...

although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD)

20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they

actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,

this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was

the LAPD that took to harrassing CT journalists and researchers.)

21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?

Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed

Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid

reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you

provide it?

22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?

CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians

forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?

23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the

small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince

me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz

told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz

stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -

First Day Evidence, pg 212

"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination

investigation wa J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the

camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office

on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It

listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De

Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property

Bureau.

However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De

Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a

'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of

'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the

fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day

Evidence, pg 214

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a

Minox camera owned by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive

camera... and it seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence

operatives because of their small size.

24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to

government investigators?

25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own

collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the

HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical

testimony... why??

26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?

Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and

"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being

used in any prior legal case...

27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the

extant Z-film?

28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the

reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.

With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them

*highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo),

LNT'ers really can't deny what happened.

So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all

immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that

Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.

BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!

And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else

(ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to

do.

LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the

eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.

Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE

EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?*

29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the

location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in

contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr. Mantik has reported that using stereo

viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D, contrary to everything else, which shows in

3D. Many have noted the "wet" appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the

lateral X-ray also has a "white patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik

reports that optical density measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a

"bonehead"... solid bone all the way across. Why is there such a distinct and

common pattern among eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?

30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the

Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report

stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and

scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able

to point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo -

yet the autopsy report, *all* prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large

wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp.

31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of

outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or

the date that Oswald left England...

32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the

weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the

Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the

Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not

inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"

of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*

that these attempts are historical and known?

33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the

Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence

is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the

Warren Commission operated.

34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference

with Dr. Perry? We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of

the conference, and they refused to do so... why?

35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:

***************************************

Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and

the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the

neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present

time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a

fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must

have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the

picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below

the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where

the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and

the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that

particular bullet, and go through.

*****************************************

"Below the shoulder blades?"

"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"

Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy

report that would support these statements?

Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a

mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?

36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it

came to the assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the

Muchmore film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film

reportedly returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him?

This isn't to mention the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken

*and never returned*

37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his

clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser,

found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth

floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR

143)

Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's

edition.

Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open

boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it

laying over there.

Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.

Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.

Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?

Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches,

something like that.

Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.

Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.

Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs

right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up

and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about

four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the

part you go down and the part you go up.

Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down?

Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)

BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location

of the three cartridges?

Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after

Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the

cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By

that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with

officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H

289)

The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen

that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard

that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The

clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was

"discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission?

38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292)

"Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the

assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the

name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313)

"Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent

search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name."

(WCR 645)

But the actual evidence shows otherwise:

"I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being

first duly sworn, depose and say:

...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so

as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not

merely an inadvertent mispronounciation. It is possible that Oswald might have

heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me

"Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or

hearing this name." (8H 318)

If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition,

they'll need to face this:

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel?

Mr. POWERS. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now.

Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288)

The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a

Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See

CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI,

Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel.

Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at

the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing

respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg

269)

Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in

the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by

Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in

with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase

Silvia Meagher)

Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the

evidence in the case of this 'alias'?

39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same

day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton

that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before

proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,

Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved

to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)

Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left

England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in

provable conflict with their own evidence:

Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"

But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no

commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order

to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the

only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This

wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply

lie about the day Owald left London...

Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?

40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the

hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen

Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and

was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)

But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was

telling the truth or not:

Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he

stand out there next to you?

Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or

behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?

Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I

was being nosey and listening.

Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant

from you, the distance from you to me?

Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,

about as far as you are from me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?

Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)

Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?

Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?

(Mrs. Tice marks.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?

Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on

the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.

Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?

Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the

time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to

state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just

3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her

testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence

contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice

had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that

Brennan had never seen Oswald before...

Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it

needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth?

When does the truth need a lie to support it?

41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the

BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.

Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:

"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA

had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of

the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented

itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated

Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large

rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the

autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the

back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided

with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland

doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who

attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted

in the photographs. None had differing accounts."

This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the

1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished

interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that

several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.

See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes

of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by

the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a

medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second

shooter."

http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/L...s/Lasting_Que...

This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has

undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and

HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?

42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD

that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,

no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the

plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they

came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a

customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one

remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been

Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a

telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting

this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could

*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.

The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was

attempting to frame LHO?

There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame

him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified

his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his

name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...

Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald

was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a

Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name

"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found

a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,

had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first

identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the

purchase documents.

Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally

released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro

group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic

Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.

Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?

There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most

famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question

becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"

So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before

the assassination?

43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present

at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by

the WC.

When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating

that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that

others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year

before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never

questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in

the assassination.

Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation?

44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr.

George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion.

A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness

statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it?

It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything

that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into

concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts.

In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden,

the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost

finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it

"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence."

"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"???

Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so

that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take

Loquvam's revealing statement out.

Why does the truth require lies to support it?

And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute

that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports?

45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by

honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find

any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the

very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death

certificate.

Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this?

NEW!!! *******************************************

46. In honor of all the hoopla surrounding the latest entry to the WC apologist

camp - Vincent Bugliosi: can anyone explain why Bugliosi (as all previous LNT'er

authors have done) was required to omit, misrepresent, and lie about the

evidence to make his case?

This isn't about facts which honest people can have disagreements about, this is

the twisting of the evidence in a dishonest manner to put together a one-sided

case. Why is this necessary?

NEW!! ********************************************

It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK,

and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the

evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these.

The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information,

but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be

answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of

day.

It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for

another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware,

it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than

8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.)

In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned'

from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello David

An excellent reminder of some of the deliberately false government representations (LIES) that proliferate both the falsification and ammendment of some factors, the deliberate omission of extremely important potential witnesses and testimony, and obvious lies which were "necessary" in order to withold truth.

No one can realistically defend, except to those quite deficient or inexperienced with this case, the statements and actions so glaringly apparent in what the government has prepared for consumption.

It reeks of the "foulness" which it, in fact, is !

It is as if this report were intended to be read by no one with an IQ exceeding "90".

This is so obviously apparent, that it should probably physically "sicken" any semi serious investigator !

Charles Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reposted with permission...

This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or

top-posting now...) Look near the bottom for a new question in honor of

Bugliosi.

[Any killfiled trolls: don't worry, if you *actually* make a valid point,

someone (Aeffects, Walt, Gil, Toddy... whoever) will be sure to respond - and

I'll see your response.]

I've updated a number of the questions with more information.

But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're

in no particular order:

1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry

location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably

exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was

virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?

2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the

head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular

defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone

but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region

there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures

approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the

Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not

admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of

medical witnesses.

3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to

demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC

was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is

almost funny to watch...

4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the

source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the

claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many

eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot

from the left?

5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,

changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts

that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How

could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a

fellow police officer?

6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,

and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his

statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would

have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the

bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.

Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you

remember?

Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots

hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.

Mr. BELIN - Where was he?

Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that

time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up

and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were

trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the

first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.

Mr. BELIN - The President's car?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was

standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped

completely.

Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?

Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.

Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment

there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.

Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of

shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the

Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why

was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of

the WCR?

7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of

people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed

dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in

the extant Zapruder film?

8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has

asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret

Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene

procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?

Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned

action?

9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this

meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the

best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no

reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in

burying the NAA data?

10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison

trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck

was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was

'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a

*reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state

prosecution?

11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of

meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move

Baker’s time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They

did so by false statements, why was this needed?

12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek

Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general

atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the

paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commmission. Dr. Guinn

said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of

the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should

also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax

impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had

informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'

because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.

'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and

conducted two parallet tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight

occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested

by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a

primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report,

quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's

cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we

found out about Oswald becuase it is secret until the publication of the Warren

Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153

These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were

contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact

that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was

not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*

for Oswald...

Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without

allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?

Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still

denied by most LNT'ers today?

13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce

(two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed

themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by

two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from

Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered

more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a

conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and

bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964,

written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964.

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce)

fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC

refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in

the WCR.)

14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the

statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers

refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?

(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he

*requested* the supporting evidence)

15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on

the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the

autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running

away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was

twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest

fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:

*******************************************

> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,

> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what

> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.

John McAdams:

We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's

apparently just a sliver.

******************************************

Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?

Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually

round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to

frame Oswald.

16. "I also found some surpising results based on the chest X-ray. I made

accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The

front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance

of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.

Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the

back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was

described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.

When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then

connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw

that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have

caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest

X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.

Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse

processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width

of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere

in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the

upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another

problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung

damage of this type was seen by the pathologsts and none is seen on the X-rays

either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then

exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major

lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact

measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves

direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at

the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158

Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that

this *is* possible?

17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:

Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not

dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described

today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you

examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.

Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?

A: Right.

Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

A: I don't recall.

Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that

doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the

prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were

clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even

John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.

18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and

completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes

were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was

done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed

in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing:

"I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer

who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same

officer did not agree to statein the autopsy report that the autopsy was

incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the

first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony,

more than three months after the autopsy."

Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple

historical fact?

19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the

inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied

that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the

eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The

prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea,

which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH

THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen.

(Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs...

although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD)

20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they

actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,

this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was

the LAPD that took to harrassing CT journalists and researchers.)

21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?

Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed

Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid

reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you

provide it?

22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?

CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians

forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?

23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the

small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince

me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz

told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz

stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -

First Day Evidence, pg 212

"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination

investigation wa J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the

camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office

on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It

listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De

Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property

Bureau.

However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De

Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a

'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of

'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the

fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day

Evidence, pg 214

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a

Minox camera owned by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive

camera... and it seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence

operatives because of their small size.

24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to

government investigators?

25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own

collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the

HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical

testimony... why??

26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?

Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and

"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being

used in any prior legal case...

27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the

extant Z-film?

28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the

reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.

With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them

*highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo),

LNT'ers really can't deny what happened.

So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all

immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that

Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.

BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!

And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else

(ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to

do.

LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the

eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.

Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE

EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?*

29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the

location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in

contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr. Mantik has reported that using stereo

viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D, contrary to everything else, which shows in

3D. Many have noted the "wet" appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the

lateral X-ray also has a "white patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik

reports that optical density measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a

"bonehead"... solid bone all the way across. Why is there such a distinct and

common pattern among eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?

30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the

Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report

stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and

scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able

to point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo -

yet the autopsy report, *all* prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large

wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp.

31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of

outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or

the date that Oswald left England...

32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the

weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the

Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the

Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not

inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"

of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*

that these attempts are historical and known?

33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the

Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence

is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the

Warren Commission operated.

34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference

with Dr. Perry? We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of

the conference, and they refused to do so... why?

35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:

***************************************

Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and

the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the

neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present

time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a

fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must

have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the

picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below

the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where

the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and

the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that

particular bullet, and go through.

*****************************************

"Below the shoulder blades?"

"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"

Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy

report that would support these statements?

Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a

mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?

36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it

came to the assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the

Muchmore film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film

reportedly returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him?

This isn't to mention the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken

*and never returned*

37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his

clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser,

found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth

floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR

143)

Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's

edition.

Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open

boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it

laying over there.

Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.

Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.

Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?

Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches,

something like that.

Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?

Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.

Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.

Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?

Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs

right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up

and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about

four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the

part you go down and the part you go up.

Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down?

Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)

BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location

of the three cartridges?

Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after

Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the

cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By

that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with

officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H

289)

The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen

that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard

that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The

clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was

"discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission?

38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292)

"Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the

assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the

name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313)

"Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent

search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name."

(WCR 645)

But the actual evidence shows otherwise:

"I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being

first duly sworn, depose and say:

...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so

as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not

merely an inadvertent mispronounciation. It is possible that Oswald might have

heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me

"Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or

hearing this name." (8H 318)

If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition,

they'll need to face this:

Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel?

Mr. POWERS. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now.

Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288)

The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a

Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See

CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI,

Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel.

Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at

the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing

respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg

269)

Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in

the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by

Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in

with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase

Silvia Meagher)

Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the

evidence in the case of this 'alias'?

39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same

day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton

that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before

proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,

Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved

to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)

Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left

England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in

provable conflict with their own evidence:

Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol...

and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"

But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no

commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order

to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the

only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This

wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply

lie about the day Owald left London...

Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?

40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the

hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen

Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and

was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)

But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was

telling the truth or not:

Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he

stand out there next to you?

Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or

behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?

Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I

was being nosey and listening.

Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant

from you, the distance from you to me?

Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,

about as far as you are from me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?

Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)

Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?

Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?

(Mrs. Tice marks.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?

Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on

the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.

Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?

Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the

time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to

state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just

3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her

testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence

contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice

had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that

Brennan had never seen Oswald before...

Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it

needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth?

When does the truth need a lie to support it?

41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the

BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.

Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:

"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA

had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of

the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented

itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated

Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large

rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the

autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the

back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided

with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland

doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who

attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted

in the photographs. None had differing accounts."

This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the

1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished

interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that

several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.

See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes

of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by

the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a

medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second

shooter."

http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/L...s/Lasting_Que...

This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has

undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and

HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?

42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD

that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,

no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the

plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they

came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a

customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one

remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been

Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a

telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting

this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could

*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.

The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was

attempting to frame LHO?

There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame

him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified

his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his

name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...

Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald

was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a

Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name

"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found

a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,

had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first

identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the

purchase documents.

Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally

released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro

group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic

Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.

Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?

There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most

famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question

becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"

So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before

the assassination?

43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present

at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by

the WC.

When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating

that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that

others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year

before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never

questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in

the assassination.

Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation?

44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr.

George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion.

A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness

statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it?

It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything

that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into

concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts.

In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden,

the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost

finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it

"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence."

"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"???

Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so

that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take

Loquvam's revealing statement out.

Why does the truth require lies to support it?

And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute

that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports?

45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by

honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find

any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the

very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death

certificate.

Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this?

NEW!!! *******************************************

46. In honor of all the hoopla surrounding the latest entry to the WC apologist

camp - Vincent Bugliosi: can anyone explain why Bugliosi (as all previous LNT'er

authors have done) was required to omit, misrepresent, and lie about the

evidence to make his case?

This isn't about facts which honest people can have disagreements about, this is

the twisting of the evidence in a dishonest manner to put together a one-sided

case. Why is this necessary?

NEW!! ********************************************

It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK,

and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the

evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these.

The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information,

but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be

answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of

day.

It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for

another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware,

it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than

8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.)

In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned'

from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...

Whew!

Although one may have possibly been able to answer each and every question if all persons were still living and would talk, not likely to get anything except speculative answers now on many of the questions.

However!

1. There was only a "Lone Shooter", and when one deals with that fact, they will come closer to understanding much of the other information.

2. The "conspiracy" as relates to Jack Ruby, is more likely devoted to things other than being a part of the assassination conspiracy.

Therefore, one is most probably looking into the wrong barrel when attempting to connect the assassination motives and Jack Ruby's motives.

3. The intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination (LIE) on the part of the WC, is not related to the actual, and quite obvious conspiracy to assassinate.

It is, was, and continues to be a "Political" motive.

"1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry

location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably

exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was

virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"

Nevertheless, here is a "freebee".

Because! When the head is bent well forward with the chin on the chest and the back of he neck in an almost an almost horizontal plane, and a bullet strikes at the edge of the hairline in the BACK OF THE NECK, (after, I might add having passed through the collar of the coat), and said bullet has been fired on an approximately 15-degree downward angle, then the bullet merely "tunnels" through the soft flesh of the skull at the base of the neck and travels downward to pass through the skull and brain and exit in the frontal lobe vicinity of the skull.

Which is of course what happened with the third/last/final shot which struck JFK down in front of James Altgens position.

P.S. This is also why the entry through the skull in the vicinity of the eop had the extreme elongated entry.

Tom

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REPOST

Whew!

Although one may have possibly been able to answer each and every question if all persons were still living and would talk, not likely to get anything except speculative answers now on many of the questions.

However!

1. There was only a "Lone Shooter", and when one deals with that fact, they will come closer to understanding much of the other information.

2. The "conspiracy" as relates to Jack Ruby, is more likely devoted to things other than being a part of the assassination conspiracy.

Therefore, one is most probably looking into the wrong barrel when attempting to connect the assassination motives and Jack Ruby's motives.

3. The intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination (LIE) on the part of the WC, is not related to the actual, and quite obvious conspiracy to assassinate.

It is, was, and continues to be a "Political" motive.

"1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry

location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably

exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was

virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"

Nevertheless, here is a "freebee".

Because! When the head is bent well forward with the chin on the chest and the back of he neck in an almost an almost horizontal plane, and a bullet strikes at the edge of the hairline in the BACK OF THE NECK, (after, I might add having passed through the collar of the coat), and said bullet has been fired on an approximately 15-degree downward angle, then the bullet merely "tunnels" through the soft flesh of the skull at the base of the neck and travels downward to pass through the skull and brain and exit in the frontal lobe vicinity of the skull.

Which is of course what happened with the third/last/final shot which struck JFK down in front of James Altgens position.

P.S. This is also why the entry through the skull in the vicinity of the eop had the extreme elongated entry.

Tom

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.

It merely means that one does not understand the evidence.

--------------------

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4085

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me for asking but who is "Toddy" and who are those other LNs or trolls you mentioned?

Would any new evidence/documentation change their minds?

What are their motives in being LNs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I assume this was first posted at the Pigpen, aka alt.conspiracy. The place where DVP once said McAdams hardly ever posted at.

He doesn't. He posts mainly at alt.assassination.jfk, not acj. The only time he currently posts anything at acj (aka: "The Asylum", which I readily admit it is) is when he cross-posts a message to both forums (aaj & acj). And he's maintained that policy for years. He just doesn't take the time to remove the acj part from the destination on those cross-posts, so those get posted to both areas.

Healy even tried to school you a little bit on this acj vs. aaj stuff, but (as usual) you, Jimbo, turned a deaf ear.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Kathy.

I think Toddy is Todd Vaughan.

The others Ben is referring to are John McAdams and Anthony Marsh.

So I assume this was first posted at the Pigpen, aka alt.conspiracy. The place where DVP once said McAdams hardly ever posted at.

The questions have changed somewhat, but the above is a good start/ Pigpen? Hardly. Do a few whackos post there? Yes. As well as here, I might add... One should state, for the record, alt.conspiracy.jfk is STILL the only un-moderated, JFK assassination related forum on the web. EVERY post is censored on AAJ!

.John McAdams left alt.conspiracy.jfk (ACJ) to form alt. assassination.jfk (AAJ) in Nov 1997, he took a few CT's whom saw the (WCR if you will) light and formed AAJ Dec 1997.

And yes, Toddy is Todd Vaughan -- one of the few longtime, lone nut nemisis I could do business with. one whom certainly knows the WCR, one whom David VonPein could learn lessons from (except of course when it comes to setting up examples of LHO shooting prowess, especially tests with non-moving sandbags...

Perhaps you'll look forward to questions based on Bugliosi's RH, those are on the drawing board and forthcoming in the future? So Jim, if you'd like to yak at Ben Holmes, drop me a note at aeffects04@gmail.com.

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And to say its [sic] seldom is simply a cherry picked misrepresentation.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're blabbering about (as per usual).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...